House of Commons Hansard #69 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was english.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for his question.

This is a question of language and pride. I too voted in favour of the motion by the government. As the member said, that motion was passed by the Parliament of Canada and not just by the Bloc Quebecois.

As a francophone, I have no problems. Earlier, one of his colleagues said that when he goes to Dorval Airport, he gets served in English only. I go to Dorval Airport often, because I travel throughout the country, and as often as possible I get served in French. I demand it. Like any good francophone, I speak to airport personnel in French. Before someone says “good day” to me, I say “bonjour”. Once I speak in French, they reply to me in French as often as possible.

To me, the French fact in Quebec, how Quebec will be able to take charge, is through education. The best way to achieve things through education is to have a school system that is very important and that will enable all Quebeckers to take charge in French.

Last weekend, the Iranians had their Norouz celebration. Nothing could be more interesting for me, representing an English-speaking riding in Quebec, than to hear young Iranians speaking in impeccable French, French that was sometimes even better than what is spoken by our francophones. I think this is actually a pointless debate. We are a bilingual country now and it has to stay that way.

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Kootenay—Columbia B.C.

Conservative

Jim Abbott ConservativeParliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I would think that my Liberal friend, with whom I agree completely on this issue, would want to be correcting our friend from the Bloc Québécois who referred to the motion that was passed in this House as referring to a Quebec nation. That was not the motion at all. It was the Quebecois as a nation within a united Canada.

If we were to make that clarity, for not only that member, not that he will accept it, but for the Bloc Québécois and for the viewers and readers of Hansard, it would be very helpful to understand that in fact the Bloc Québécois is distorting the motion that was actually passed in the House.

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with my Conservative colleague's statement that this Quebec nation is within a united Canada. We on this side fully agree with that. With Quebec being a real francophone province, it does not mean that we need to interfere with the rights of all other Canadians living in Quebec or the anglophone community.

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the floor after my colleague’s obsequious remarks in which he blames everything on the public education system. That is precisely where the problem lies. If Canada had recognized years ago the existence of the Quebec nation, maybe the transfers to the provinces for education would not have been cut like they were under his government then led by Jean Chrétien. His own government cut the education transfers to the provinces, Quebec included, with the result that our elementary schools, high schools and colleges are critically underfunded.

The motion before us does not deal with language only. It also deals with the recognition of the Quebec nation and the elimination of the fiscal imbalance. We have no lessons to take from a member whose political party cut the transfers to the provinces and did not acknowledge the existence of the fiscal imbalance. As far as the obsequious remarks of the hon. member are concerned, I cannot wait to hear more.

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague calls my remarks “obsequious”, but they are nevertheless based on facts. It is true the federal government reduced transfer payments to all the Canadian provinces. We agreed to that, and for good reasons.

But my colleague makes a mistake: The quality of French teaching in Quebec will not be improved just with more fees and more money, but with a better education system, better teachers, people who really know French and can teach it. This is completely different from what my colleague in the Bloc is talking about.

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, before us today we have the following motion from the Bloc Québécois, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, following the recognition of the Quebec nation by this House, the government should move from words to deeds and propose measures to solidify that recognition, including compliance with the language of labour relations of Quebec's Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in Quebec.

This motion seeks to perpetuate old fears that the French language is under constant threat and that previous efforts of Canadian governments to promote French both inside and outside Quebec have been to no avail.

The Bloc Québécois has always defended Quebec's jurisdictions. But this motion would impose provincial law on enterprises under federal jurisdiction. It holds falsely that the French language in Quebec is in a disastrous decline. In fact, the 2006 census, and the report of the Office québécois de la langue française published on March 5, 2008, paint a different picture. Specifically, the use of French in the workplace has increased if we compare it with census statistics from 2001.

It is also important to realize that the changes proposed by the Bloc could in fact threaten the rights of the anglophone minority in Quebec.

The Bloc would like to ghettoize French and isolate Quebec linguistically by disregarding the situation in the other provinces. A bilingual Canada benefits every province and every linguistic minority. In many provinces and in the territories, bilingualism rates are going up, showing the vitality of minority linguistic communities. Furthermore, a recent survey that can be found in the Lord report shows that a large majority of Canadians believe that bilingualism is a factor that defines our country.

As was just mentioned, Parliament passed the motion recognizing Quebec as a nation on November 27, 2006. Since that historic vote, the Bloc has been trying to force the government into implementing policies that would bring the nation of Quebec closer to the Bloc's dream. This motion is just the Bloc's latest attempt along those lines. By forcing enterprises under federal jurisdiction to conform to Quebec's Charter of the French Language, the motion in fact gives Quebec provincial laws precedence over federal laws, and, from the Bloc's point of view, gives additional recognition to Quebec's status as a nation.

The Bloc Québécois has also introduced legislation along the same lines, Bill C-482. The Bloc bill would amend the Canada Labour Code so that federally regulated companies doing business in Quebec would be subject to Quebec's Charter of the French language. The Bloc Québécois is trying to impose the Charter of the French Language, Bill 101, on federally regulated companies by filling what it calls a “regulatory gap”. In fact, section 24 of part V of the Official Languages Act stipulates that:

English and French are the languages of work in all federal institutions, and officers and employees of all federal institutions have the right to use either official language in accordance with this Part.

The Bloc contends that this act does not refer to companies under federal jurisdiction, but to “federal institutions”, which would allow the Bloc to impose the provisions of the charter on companies under federal jurisdiction.

The bill reveals the hypocrisy of the Bloc Québécois on this issue, because it impinges on existing federal laws. Moreover, the Bloc Québécois has not explained the economic and structural consequences its bill would have on federally regulated companies or on Quebec, which enforces the language law.

The Bloc has also not explained how the anglophone minority would be protected. Even Canada's Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, has said that Bill C-482 could threaten anglophone minority rights, especially when it comes to service delivery.

The Bloc's motion strikes at the very heart of bilingualism, which is a Canadian value.

What this motion is saying is that French must be promoted in Quebec without regard for the linguistic minorities outside the province. It is important to note that, according to Statistics Canada, the proportion of Canadians whose mother tongue is French increased by 1.6% between 2001 and 2006. In addition, during the same period, the proportion of anglophones who know French rose from 9% to 9.4%. The proportion of allophones who know French rose from 11.8% to 12.1% during the same period.

In Quebec in 2006, nearly seven out of 10 anglophones, 68.9%, said they knew French and English, compared to 66.1% in 2001. It is also important to note that the bilingualism rate increased in eight of the twelve provinces and territories, but not in Quebec, from 1996 to 2006.

To support the position that bilingualism is at the core of Canadian values, I want to mention that bilingualism has also become more popular since 2003. Indeed, it has increased from 56% in 2003, to 72% in 2006, among Canadians. One of the main arguments of the Bloc Québécois is that French as the language of work is being threatened, and that applying the charter to a larger number of businesses would improve the situation. However, the 2006 census conducted by Statistics Canada shows just the opposite. In 2001, 63% of immigrants spoke French in their workplace, compared to 65% in 2006. As well, 60% of allophone immigrants were using French in 2001, compared to 63% in 2006.

Moreover, in the retail sector, which is a provincial jurisdiction, the use of English in the workplace has increased by 1%, which seems to indicate that even provincial laws on language do not yield the anticipated results.

The action plan for official languages developed by the leader of the official opposition and the Liberal government in 2003, with a budget of $810 million, is at the core of the Liberal initiative to promote official languages. This plan seeks to help linguistic minorities across the country, including the anglophone minority in Quebec.

In a speech delivered in June 2007 at the summit of francophone and Acadian communities, our leader pledged to continue to implement the Liberal plan, to pursue the efforts made, and to restore the court challenges program, which is so important for minorities, while also doubling its budget.

The Bloc Québécois is trying to find a way to catch the Conservative government off guard, regarding its recognition of the Quebec nation. The Bloc was literally caught with its pants down by the Conservative government when, in an attempt to embarrass the new government by challenging it to prove that it was sincere about open federalism, it presented yet again a motion to recognize the Quebec nation. When the minority Conservative government used the Bloc's initiative and managed to get the House to pass a motion recognizing the Quebec nation within a united Canada, the Bloc was caught off guard, and questions about its relevancy began to be voiced again.

In conclusion, this motion is an intrusion into federal jurisdictions. The Bloc Québécois keeps condemning federal intrusions into provincial jurisdictions, looking shocked every time. It is presenting this motion for just one purpose, which is to try to show that it has a reason to exist.

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

Mr. Speaker, I heard my fellow member say that the Bloc Québécois is trying to intrude on federal legislation. When it comes to minimum wage, which involves the Canada Labour Code for federally regulated workers, how can the federal government agree to adjust the federal minimum wage to match the provincial minimum wage? How can the federal government agree to adjust the minimum wage in Quebec so that it is the same? How can it be the same in New Brunswick, in Ontario and yet this is acceptable to the federal government? This is not a matter of intruding on federal jurisdiction. It is simply asking for accommodation, as was the case for minimum wage, which would give telecommunications, transportation, bank workers, and so on the right to work in French. Currently, these institutions have no obligation to make people work in French.

Earlier, my colleague from Abitibi gave examples. I can also give a very concrete one. At the Dorval airport, the person at security could not even speak to me properly in French. Worse still, she could not speak to me properly in English. I did not understand a single word of what she said to me in English. All she was asking was if she could touch my sweater, and I did not understand what she was saying because she spoke English poorly and her French was worse.

I think that there is a problem in institutions under federal jurisdiction, and we should give people the right to speak French. Speaking in your mother tongue when serving someone who speaks the same language as you is a fundamental right.

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has asked two questions and I will answer one after the other.

The first one is related to the minimum wage. My colleague should not be wondering about that. He should understand that those are agreements between the federal government and the provinces and territories. Nothing is imposed on the federal government. Nothing is forced on any provinces or territories. Those agreements are reached by mutual consent by the Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments.

Then there was his misadventure at the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport, in Dorval. As I understand my colleague's explanation, it did not involve an employee, described as a federal government employee by the member, who refused to speak French and insisted on speaking English. It involved an employee, according to my colleague, who could speak neither French nor English.

Of course, I cannot approve of this situation. I sympathize with my colleague from the Bloc. However, this is not a problem that relates to the official languages of Canada. It is a very basic problem of recognition of one of the two official languages of our country. My colleague should make a complaint. I would be happy to join with him in doing so. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with the language of work, which should be French rather than any other language in Quebec.

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Edmonton Centre Alberta

Conservative

Laurie Hawn ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I did enjoy my colleague's comments. It is clear that the Liberal Party members understand the negative effects this motion would have, as we do, and they clearly understand what it means to be truly a federal party, as we do on this side.

I think they would acknowledge the fact that the Bloc Québécois is far from being a party that has accomplished anything of value for Canada or in fact Quebec.

I would like the member to acknowledge that he misspoke in referring to the motion of November 2006. It did not talk about Quebec as a nation within a united Canada, it talked about the Québécois as a nation within a united Canada, not Quebec. I would like him to clarify that.

Also, could he explain to the House again, especially for the Bloc Québécois, the negative effects this action would have on Canada and everything we stand for?

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague across the aisle, this might have been an interpretation difference or translation difference, but we all know that it was la nation Québécoise. It is not a question of, as he would understand, the geographical territory. That was not the intent. That is not the situation. It is la nation Québécoise.

As far as the negative effects, I could repeat my 10 minute speech although I only have about 30 seconds left. However, let us face it, the Bloc Québécois has entered into a very difficult period of time. The Parti québécois in the province of Quebec has decided that it would not be a good idea to return to the idea of a referendum. It would not be a good idea to press for a referendum at this time and it would not necessarily be a good idea either to press in regard to the sovereignty or separation of the province.

Therefore, Bloc members are in a blind situation. Where do they go from here? The reason for their coming to Ottawa was the passion, but I understand now from comments I am getting that it is much more a question of pensions.

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to the opposition motion from the Bloc Québécois relating to the Charter of the French Language. Even though it has been read often since 10 o'clock this morning, this motion put forward by the hon. member for Joliette is very important and deserves to be read once more:

That, in the opinion of the House, following the recognition of the Quebec nation by this House, the government should move from words to deeds and propose measures to solidify that recognition, including compliance with the language of labour relations of Quebec’s Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in Quebec.

I believe it is clear that this motion refers to enterprises and not to services provided by the federal government. There is a big difference.

Let us talk about the language of work. As we know, Bill 101, through the Charter of the French Language, gives francophone Quebeckers the opportunity to work in their mother tongue.

I should mention that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Outremont.

This motion is similar to Bill C-482. The NDP made its position clear regarding Bill C-482. It has supported the bill from the beginning. The role of Parliament is to move bills forward. However, we cannot do so blindly. To the extent possible, we must be able to study a bill. If we want to change Canadian legislation, we must first study it. Parliament includes not only the House of Commons but also as the parliamentary committees, which are made up of members from all parties. These committees have an opportunity to invite Canadians to participate in the study of bills, in order to determine whether the bills are sensible. This also gives us the opportunity to study each bill.

A motion in the House of Commons does not mean that it is binding. It suggests to the government that it should move in that direction. What does the Bloc Québécois want? It is calling on the Conservative government to move forward in a way that is respectful of the Charter of the French Language, commonly known as Bill 101 in Quebec, which governs the language of work, which is French.

I can understand what is happening in Quebec. It is a question of leaving the Bloc Québécois alone to look after its own political affairs. I respect that. However, when it comes to the significance of the motion itself, we must put politics aside and focus on that significance. I prefer to make my own interpretation of the motion, rather than dwelling on the squabbles that have existed for the past 40 years, since the days of Trudeau, Chrétien and company, and everyone who has always argued with Quebec. Instead of that, I simply want to focus on determining the importance of the motion.

Based on this motion, it seems to me that Quebec workers themselves do not understand why, when their company is under provincial jurisdiction, they can speak their language, French, but when their company is under federal jurisdiction, they cannot use the law to speak the language of their choice. For example, employees of Radio-Nord in Quebec do not understand why they cannot express themselves exclusively in French—they simply cannot—although, if they were employed by a company under provincial jurisdiction, governed by Bill 101, they would be allowed do so.

For our part, in the NDP, we checked with the labour movement in Quebec. They share our opinion. The labour movement supports an examination of Bill C-482 by the House of Commons. While the Conservatives try to say they are a federalist party and that they should lead the country; the provinces do exist and we should respect them. Certainly, we must respect the will of the provinces and discuss what is happening there.

I would never have believed it was possible in the history of Canada but last week, in New Brunswick, 350 anglophones assembled in the street in front of the Legislative Assembly in Fredericton to demand that their children be allowed to learn French staring in grade 1. That began a new chapter in the history of our country. We must be open to that. It is a page of our history.

People now understand that we can speak both official languages in this country. I do not think the Bloc Québécois motion means that they do not want English in Quebec any more. That is a false debate; that is the argument of Justin Trudeau and that whole group. What is happening now is about federalist quarrels. That is what divided our country. Now, we recognize what is going on in our country.

I was saddened to see the reaction of the premier of New Brunswick, Shawn Graham—I am criticizing him for it this morning, here in the House of Commons—towards the English-speaking people who want their children to learn French, the second official language. He put obstacles in their way by refusing that. He said they would learn it in grade 5, at the age of 11. Who is he to dictate to people what is good for their children? Who is he to do that?

It is very sad that, despite the direction that Canada’s two founding communities are taking, with our first nations partners, and are finally now able to work together—the new generations are all working together—there are still government representatives who want to throw obstacles in the way.

The goal of this motion, which we want to support—the NDP will, in fact, support it—is that the Québécois people, the heart of North America's francophones, should be able to work in French if a company under federal jurisdiction opens for business in Quebec. People do not want the big boss to compel them to speak English if they want a job. That has happened too often.

We have to be open to that. In adopting the Sherbrooke Declaration, the NDP showed that it was going to start studying what else it could do after recognizing Quebec as a nation. We cannot just recognize Quebec as a nation without anything at all changing in the life of Quebeckers. Otherwise, we would just be the same kind of stubborn mules as Trudeau and Chrétien. This attitude really has to change. We have to stop trying to make Canadians think that if we do this, it is the end of federalism, the end of Canada.

The fact that the member for Acadie—Bathurst learned English did not make him lose his French. People who lose their mother tongue only do so because they want to. There is so much we can do today, reading and all the other things we can do, that we would never lose our mother tongue if we loved it. That is one of the things that cannot be lost. No one can persuade me of that.

What is dangerous, though, is when nothing is done to give people an opportunity to learn the language of their ancestors. That is what happened out west, where francophones had to fight to get their own schools because they could not send their children to francophone schools and their children were becoming anglophones. That is what happened.

I do not think, though, that there are anglophones in Quebec who lose their mother tongue. Quite to the contrary, they keep their mother tongue and learn French as well. That is great and they are to be congratulated, but the same thing has to happen elsewhere. It was the same story in Prince Edward Island.

That is why it is too bad that the federal government eliminated the court challenges program to prevent French-speaking Canadian minorities from getting what they need to preserve their mother tongue. This is the kind of thing people mean when they say federalism does not work. The government prevents communities all over the country from preserving their language. It actually does things to ensure that they lose it.

We should be more open-minded, therefore, and we are going to support the Bloc motion for all these reasons. It is not because they are separatists or this or that but because it makes sense to support it. We can then take a good look at Bill C-482, study it, decide whether some amendments are necessary and propose them so that everyone can be in favour of this bill.

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Ken Epp Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Mr. Speaker, while the member was speaking in French, and I believe eloquently, I thought about our interpreters in this place who make it possible for all of us, regardless of our mother tongue, to participate in Canada's Parliament. Those interpreters listened to what the member was saying and, simultaneously and at the same speed at which the member was speaking, translated it into English so that I could understand what he said. I have great admiration and some envy for people who are fluent in both languages.

I would also like to comment for those in our country who are currently bilingual or unilingual in either language that if they want to maintain their mother tongue, they have to take some measures to do so. I do not know if the Speaker is aware of this, but my first language is neither English nor French. My parents insisted that we learn the German language so we could communicate with our grandparents, who never did learn either English or French even though they came to this country.

What I will tell members here is that when my grandparents passed away we stopped using the language and, because of that, my children and grandchildren now are unilingual English. We lost our mother tongue because there was no extraordinary effort taken to maintain it.

Therefore, I would like to commend all members of the House, including members in our party, even though the Bloc members do not want to recognize or acknowledge it, who take those extraordinary steps to maintain their language. Let us do what we can. At the same time, let us recognize that this government is probably doing more than any government before it in order to extend and maintain the true bilingual nature of this country.

With that, I end my comments. I do not have a question. I just wanted to say that I enjoyed the member's speech, because he is quite obviously fluent in both languages and I express my envy for that.

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. I want to thank the interpreters for the good work they do. I will bet that it is not easy to follow me in any interpretation. I would like to thank the interpreters and I know they will earn their wages today when I take the floor.

However, at the same time, in terms of the idea in the motion before us, we have to think about workers on a job who have no interpreters to enable them to speak to their boss. That is what we have to think about. We have to think about the little people in the community who go to work. Those are the people we have to think about. We must not let politics take this over. Quebec is a great province, which we recognize as a nation, and I want to say that we recognize the Acadians as a nation too. We recognize the first nations as a nation. We recognize all Canadians as a nation. That is the way we should work, together as friends helping each other.

I am not worried about the anglophones in Montreal keeping their English. I say that very strongly. Let us look at the institutions there. McGill is one of the best universities in the whole country. Those students have a chance to study there. They have good schools and all of that. I am saying that I do not think we have to worry about that, but we do have to worry about other places that do not have such institutions.

That is why I do not agree with the hon. member from the Conservative Party when he says the Conservative government has been doing this, this, and that. The Conservatives are the ones who cut the court challenges program and that has stopped the communities from getting those tools in order to stay alive. As a matter of fact, now if a community loses its court challenge program case, the community will have to pay the court costs. That is why I have to blame the government. It is not doing the right thing for the survival of these communities, whether it is in Quebec or across the country.

For example, there is the attitude the government has taken on official languages. I do not agree that the Conservatives should have Bernard Lord and go in camera to have studies across the country when the parliamentary committee has done a good job. We have not yet heard what the actual plan for official languages will be. I cannot wait to see it. It is with the action plan that we will help Canadians across the country in terms of health care, education, culture and art. That is where we will be able to help people. That is why I say that we have to do it together. We probably should put a little bit of the politics aside and do the right thing for Canadians all across the country.

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, I am here to say that the New Democratic Party of Canada will vote in favour of the motion proposed today. I want to take this opportunity to try to inform my Conservative colleague. He said earlier that his government has done more than any other government to ensure that the true nature of bilingualism is respected and reflected in Canada. I want to tell him that he should take a close look at what my colleague for Acadie—Bathurst just talked about, the court challenges program.

Had it not been for this program established under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we would have never had cases such as the case brought forward by what was called at the time the ACFO, the French Canadian association of Ontario. That case allowed the Supreme Court to determine the extent of certain obligations. People supposedly had the right to instruction in linguistic minority schools, which meant the ability to exercise some control. But it was not that clear in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These rights needed to be brought to life, otherwise these nice theories would have had no effect in the real world.

The same thing happened in Manitoba, your native province, Mr. Speaker. Let us not forget that, in 1890, Manitoba passed a law to deny francophones the right to have laws written in their language. The Supreme Court reinstated that right in June 1985. I know all about that since I was in charge of reviewing the French language version of the laws of Manitoba. For two years and a half, I had the great pleasure to work regularly in Winnipeg and I became well-acquainted with the Franco-Manitoban community. I still have many friends in this vibrant community.

Today, in the official languages committee, we heard witnesses from the Northwest Territories and from Saskatchewan. In that regard, I would like to quote the translation of a popular sentence since translations found here are sometimes better than original versions.

In English we sometimes say that one has to be able to walk the talk. The French version that has been dreamed up here in Canada is even better than the original English one.

The French expression is “Il faut que les bottines suivent les babines.” The Conservatives just pay lip service. They are prepared to say that they recognize the Quebec nation, but the first measure they proposed sought to proportionally reduce Quebec representation here and to eliminate access of francophones outside Quebec to the court challenges program, which enables them to establish and recognize their rights.

When the Prime Minister received the first annual report from Graham Fraser, the current Commissioner of Official Languages, he was shocked. His defence was simplistic. We know that our Prime Minister is rather grouchy, but it was surprising to see him launch an all-out attack. He defended himself by saying that he began his press conferences in French. That is fine and symbolically important but that will not build a school in Saskatchewan or allow a person from Manitoba to work in his own language and to prosper, to use his language and make it a living language. Their gestures continue to be symbolic; they recognize the nation but do not take action to make it a reality.

It is an entirely different story on the Liberal side. My colleague mentioned Justin Trudeau. This is astounding. He recently said that those who are not bilingual are lazy. It is outrageous to say to people who live anywhere in Quebec that if they have never learned English it is because they are lazy. What Mr. Trudeau should realize is that he is privileged, as I am. My mother was francophone and my father was anglophone and so I learned both languages. I was fortunate and so was he. He does not acknowledge that it is a question of luck or that he is privileged, since he finds it unusual that others are not like him. That is indicative of his attitude.

Yesterday, we learned that the Liberals have appointed Gerard Kennedy. To find out a little more about him, I suggest you read a very good article by Joey Slinger in today's Toronto Star. Gerard Kennedy was one of the Liberal leadership hopefuls. Yesterday, the current leader appointed him the critic for intergovernmental affairs.

What message did that send? Easy: the party does not recognize the Quebec nation. That was the message he sent. Today, the Liberals will show us what they think of the French language in Quebec. People are paying very close attention to this, and they are worried. Many years ago, from 1980 to 1983, I had the opportunity to work for the Conseil de la langue française, and I also worked for Alliance Québec. As I said earlier, I was responsible for legislation in Manitoba, and as commissioner for Quebec's language of instruction appeals commission, I drafted the agreement following the Supreme Court ruling that allowed Quebec to maintain its French character and permitted unilingual French billboards. That means I understand both sides and know how to work toward solutions.

What the Liberals demonstrated earlier was astonishing. The Liberals believe that it would be sacrilegious to recognize Quebec or the importance of allowing the French language to reach its full potential within the only Canadian province that has a francophone majority. That goes against everything they have been saying for the last 40 years. Why? Because the Liberal Party of Canada is known for its tendency to say that it can be trusted to keep Quebeckers in their place. It should come as no surprise that of the 75 seats in Quebec, the Liberals can count theirs on two hands.

Just before Easter, the Conservative government, acting on a whim, got involved in the securities issue, which was none of its business, and tried to bring in some nonsense about federal control that would tie the hands of the provinces , including Quebec. That issue is an important one for Quebec, and Quebec's National Assembly unanimously passed a motion about it.

I noticed with great interest that the French-speaking Liberal members from Quebec were not here for that vote. I am anxious to see what the member for Bourassa, former Liberal critic for national defence and now critic for official languages, will do this afternoon.

Today's vote on the motion only says that there is a bill proposal on the table and that we already voted to have it considered. We want some statistics, we want to hear experts and know what the situation is. We cannot simply say today that we do not even want to talk about it.

However, that is exactly the message the Liberal Party of Canada is sending. But that suits it well. Indeed, that party does not want to discuss it. That party is showing its true colours.

In order for people to understand, this is about Bill C-482, which seeks to ensure workers' rights. Once a job becomes an interprovincial undertaking and subject to federal law, the boss can ask the employee to have a knowledge of a language other than French in Quebec. We should look at that, bring in experts and find out the real effect it would have on the critical mass and strength of the French language in Quebec. It is a subject of concern for all Canadians and it certainly is a concern for us in the NDP.

It would be a contradiction to say we want to have Bill C-482 studied in committee and have those experts in and find out the real lay of the land and then turn around and vote against this motion. Today we in the NDP are sending a clear signal that we want that debate to take place. We want to hear those experts. We want to find out what this is about and come to a final decision with regard to the disposition of Bill C-482.

We will not get there with the attitude of the federal Liberals. The true signal the leader of the Liberal Party gave us was when he named Gerard Kennedy responsible for intergovernmental relations.

I personally had a debate with Gerard Kennedy. He proclaims to anyone who is willing to listen that Quebec is not a nation. That is Gerard Kennedy's position. Not long before Christmas, Justin Trudeau said that Quebec was not a nation. Not only they are both official candidates for the Liberal Party but Mr. Kennedy has just been named to a very important position even though he has not been elected yet.

There comes a time when one must go beyond symbols. There comes a time when we must abandon 40-year-old strategies that aim to divide Canadians by saying that the Liberal Party's trademark is the capacity to unite. That is untrue. We can see today that this is false. That party tries to divide us.

We believe that a strong Quebec with a well protected and dynamic French language adds a lot to Canada. That is why we are not afraid to say that we want to study Bill C-482. And we do not want to send a message to the contrary by voting against the motion. Today, we will stand up and vote for the motion by the Bloc.

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

Edmonton Centre Alberta

Conservative

Laurie Hawn ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is hard to follow. On the one hand, the NDP members describe themselves as advocates for the official languages, but on the other hand, in 2007, they voted against the $30 million increase over two years for official language minority communities and linguistic duality. They also voted against budget 2008, which includes a follow-up to the official languages action plan and follows on Bernard Lord's recommendations regarding government consultations over linguistic duality. They also said that they wanted any bill affecting the Official Languages Act submitted to a committee.

How can they explain this two-faced position?

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member really wants to help Quebec, he should take a hard look at his 2008 budget, which he just mentioned.

In the fall of last year, the Conservatives provided $14 billion in tax cuts. This is part of their plan. They think it is the way to go. But a company that does not make a profit has no income tax to pay. We agree on that. In the manufacturing industry, Quebec unfortunately won the gold medal for the largest number of lost jobs, with 70,000. A manufacturing company that did not make a profit did not get any of this money. In the forest industry, a company that did not make a profit did not get any money either. Who got the money? By a curious coincidence, most of these $14 billion went to the oil industry, right in area of the hon. member from Edmonton.

Does it bother him that I do not support him in this decision? A strong Quebec economy is good for everybody and helps keep this country united. Instead of always supporting the tar sands industry and a production that runs against sustainable development, this member could perhaps start thinking that because of an overheated oil industry, the Conservatives are gutting a Canadian economy that used to be balanced, an economy we have been building since the second world war.

Well paid jobs with pension benefits are being lost in the manufacturing industry. There is also the issue of long term sustainable development, because future generations will have to pay for the Conservatives’ foolishness. They are depleting our natural resources without thinking of the impact on future generations.

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleague to come and visit successful manufacturing plants in the riding of Lévis—Bellechasse. We believe in the manufacturing sector and in the promotion of linguistic duality across the country. This is why I have some difficulty in understanding my colleague's take today. I have a few questions for him.

New Democrats have always pushed hard for centralization. I am somewhat surprised today to see that their position on this motion is creating confusion. It seems fundamental to me, since our government has a policy of open federalism, that areas of jurisdiction be respected. I would like to know how he sees the promotion of linguistic duality and respecting jurisdictions in light of the proposal he wishes the House to pass today. Does he not see this could bring about an intrusion in the areas of provincial jurisdiction?

Finally, I would simply like to remind my colleague that over 94% of Quebeckers mainly speak French often or regularly at work. Quebeckers are open and the manufacturing plants in Bellechasse do business across the country. If we consider that 94% of Quebeckers use French predominantly, what is the relevance of this motion when we should be seeking to increase the productivity of our businesses to ensure they are competitive and world class.

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, the future former member for Lévis—Bellechasse has some nerve. He will no longer be a member of Parliament when we have done with him on the Rabaska project. He has some nerve to lecture us on centralization.

Let us not forget that the last thing the Conservatives did, just before Easter, was to shackle us with the Minister of Finance's approach to securities. I would remind the House that Vincent Lacroix is serving a jail sentence of 12 years because Quebec has a financial market management structure. The last thing that we need is more interference from the federal government. The member for Lévis—Bellechasse has voted in favour of this centralization. The New Democratic Party has voted against it.

In terms of sustainable development, my comment relating to his good friend, the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park, also applies to him. Once Denis L'Homme, the NDP candidate in Lévis—Bellechasse, has engaged all the region's dynamic forces against the Rabaska project, which is contrary to the public interest and to sustainable development, he will have understood that Quebeckers value their environment. They do not want to pass on to future generations the responsibility for today's bad decisions.

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Bloc

Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reread the Bloc Québécois' opposition day motion.

—following the recognition of the Quebec nation by this House, the government should move from words to deeds and propose measures to solidify that recognition, including compliance with the language of labour relations of Quebec’s Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in Quebec.

In this regard, I would like to respond to the member for Lévis—Bellechasse, who is gloating that everything is going so well and that 94% of Quebeckers speak French at work. If this is the case, it should be included in the act. If this reflects the real situation, they should put it in writing, support the Bloc Québécois' motion and formalize this ideal situation that exists in Lévis—Bellechasse.

The fact remains that Quebeckers are a nation. By recognizing this, the House of Commons automatically recognized its attributes, in particular its language, its culture, its model of integration and its Civil Code, but we will talk about it later. French is the official language of Quebec, except for the federal government, which recognizes two official languages. However, the federal government does not expressly recognize Quebec's culture. Whenever the federal government comes to Quebec to promote bilingualism, particularly in Montreal, it weakens French. Whenever French is supported in Quebec, it helps francophones outside Quebec.

However, the federal government imposes an integration model. It imposes multiculturalism, which runs counter to the Quebec integration model of interculturalism.

The Bloc Québécois recommends, therefore, that the federal government recognize and comply with the Charter of the French Language in Quebec, specifically with regard to enterprises under federal jurisdiction, that it exempt Quebec from its multicultural policy and that it grant Quebec regulatory power over radio broadcasting and telecommunications.

This would be a start in a genuine recognition of the Quebec nation. In fact, although the Conservative party prides itself on its openness towards Quebec, it has done absolutely nothing for the people of Quebec, except for recognizing the nation, which was, let us recall, a Bloc Québécois initiative.

It was the Bloc Québécois that, on an opposition day like today, introduced a motion that called for the recognition of Quebec as a nation. This government, that really just intended to obstruct and deceive us, used a shameful political tactic and applauded itself as it said that it was going to recognize Quebec as a nation, but within a united Canada. We will see later that Quebec was already a nation before Canada even existed.

As I have just mentioned, a little more than a year ago, on Monday, November 27, 2006, the House of Commons agreed to the following motion by 265 votes to 16:

That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.

This was, as it still is, a great victory for the Bloc, but it was above all a victory for all the people of Quebec. To be recognized as a nation is no small matter, and it comes with privileges and rights. But on these, the government is silent.

Even so, it was still the first time that Canada recognized our existence as a national community. It is the first country to do so and we hope that it will not be the last.

Applied to persons, the term nation refers to a “group of people, generally fairly large, distinguished by its awareness of its unity and a desire to live together” according to the definition in the Robert dictionary. In short, “nation” is the community to which we belong, the group with which we identify, and within which we debate and decide how our society is to be organized.

And because a nation is the special place where political decisions can be made, recognizing a nation means recognizing a political entity with legitimate political rights and aspirations.

By recognizing the Quebec nation, the House of Commons recognized the right of Quebeckers to control the social, economic and cultural development of Quebec themselves. By stating that the Quebec nation is composed of all residents of Quebec, regardless of their origin or mother tongue or the region where they live, the federal government recognized that the Quebec nation has a clear geographic base, made up of all of the territory of Quebec. In so doing, Canada declared that calls for partition are illegitimate.

In short, recognition of the Quebec nation also means recognition of the legitimacy of Quebec’s repeated demands that Quebeckers have the powers and resources that are needed in order to develop their own society. To date, unfortunately, Canada has not yet acted on that recognition, and continues to behave as if it was composed of a single nation. Here again, we can see this Conservative government’s lack of openness to Quebec and to Quebeckers. As we shall soon see, this government’s openness to Quebeckers is a myth; it is an urban legend. Recognition of a nation must in fact be more than symbolic.

Nations have rights, and they have one right in particular, the right to self-determination, the right to decide the course of their own development. Quebec can choose the course of its own development by becoming sovereign. We know that this is the first choice of the Bloc Québécois. Just as it can choose to try to get the powers and resources it needs in order to achieve that by working to renew federalism. That is not our choice. But both options are legitimate, and we recognize that.

While waiting for Quebec to be sovereign, the Bloc Québécois works to promote the sovereignty of Quebec every day. The Bloc works to defend the interests of the Quebec nation. Even without recognition by Canada, the Quebec nation continues to exist, to pay its taxes, to have interests that are unique to it and that are often very different from Canada’s. The Bloc continues to defend the interests and promote the values of the Quebec nation. If Quebeckers form a nation, it is not up to Canadians to decide how they plan to organize their society.

Because Quebec is the homeland of the Quebec nation, it must have the resources to control its own development. To that end, the Bloc Québécois plans to work to resolve a number of priority issues, including the fiscal imbalance, because that has still not been resolved. Because the Government of Quebec is our national government, it must resolve this problem. As long as it persists, Quebec does not have the resources to implement the choices of Quebeckers, and what Quebec does depends on the goodwill of Canada.

Culture and communications are two other priority issues for the Bloc Québécois. Because Quebeckers form a nation, telecommunications and broadcasting must be under Quebec’s jurisdiction. As well, because the Quebec nation exists, Ottawa must recognize Quebec’s culture and identity in its cultural policies and legislation.

Quebec's standing on the international scene is a third priority issue for the Bloc Québécois. Because Quebeckers form a nation, they must be able to express themselves on the international scene in their jurisdictions. Quebec is fully sovereign in the jurisdictions the Constitution gives it. It must be able to fully exercise its powers in those jurisdictions, including in international relations.

What is a nation? The word “nation” can refer to two different things. When applied to a state or territory, the word “nation” can mean “country”. That is the meaning of the word in United Nations, an organization of which Quebec cannot unfortunately be a member yet because it is not sovereign. So, if the motion said “Quebec is a nation”, some people could say that that means that Quebec is a country. But that is not what the motion says. It asks the House to recognize that “the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.”

When the word “nation” is applied to people, it does not mean “country”. According to the Larousse dictionary, it designates a “large human community which, most of the time, lives on a common territory and has historic, linguistic and cultural unity and the desire to live together”. That is the meaning of today's motion.

In Quebec, there is a long-time consensus that Quebeckers form a nation. On October 30, 2003, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted the following motion: “That the National Assembly reaffirm that the people of Quebec form a nation”. The motion does not say that Quebeckers form a nation if Canada remains what it is or if Quebec opts for sovereignty. It simply says that the people of Quebec form a nation. There was a reason why the National Assembly chose to reaffirm the existence of a Quebec nation.

This resolution repeated what all the Quebec governments have been saying for decades. I will quote a few, including Maurice Duplessis, the leader of the Union Nationale party, who said “The Canadian confederation is a treaty of union between two nations”. He said that in April 1946, not yesterday.

Jean Lesage, a Liberal, said:

Quebec did not defend provincial autonomy simply for the principle of it, but because, for Quebec, autonomy was the specific condition not for its survival, which is assured, but for its affirmation as a people and a nation.

Jean Lesage, a good Liberal and former premier of Quebec, said that in November 1963.

Daniel Johnson Sr., another unionist, said:

The Constitution should not have as its sole purpose to federate territories, but also to associate in equality two linguistic and cultural communities, two founding peoples, two societies, two nations.

I could also quote René Lévesque:

Canada is composed of two equal nations; Quebec is the home and the heart of one of those nations and, as it possesses all the attributes of a distinct national community, it has an inalienable right to self-determination...This right to control its own national destiny is the most fundamental right that Quebec society has.

That was in June 1980.

Jacques Parizeau, a good PQ premier, said:

To date, Canada's basic law has failed to recognize Quebeckers as a nation, a people or even a distinct society. That is a sad commentary.

Lucien Bouchard was once a Conservative, but he finally opened his eyes and realized that the Quebec nation deserved better than the Conservative Party. In October 1999, he said:

Quebec is the only majority francophone society on the North American continent with a well-defined land base and political institutions which it controls. The Quebec people have all the classic attributes of a nation... The Quebec people adhere to the democratic concept of a nation characterized by its language, French, and a diverse culture, and which is broadly open to international immigration.

The Bloc Québécois' Bill C-482 is extremely important. We know that it was introduced in this House by the hon. member for Drummond. The bill calls on the federal government—because it was obvious that the federal government did not have the will to do so—to recognize the Charter of the French Language within Quebec and extend its application to businesses under federal jurisdiction and—as we will see later—more specifically under the Canada Labour Code.

To avoid any ambiguity, it is essential to state specifically in the Official Languages Act that French is Quebec's official language. It must be done because this Conservative government is promoting bilingualism in Quebec. And Quebec being totally surrounded by a sea of anglophones and being constantly bombarded by the anglophone culture through television, radio and the Internet, when bilingualism is being promoted in a nation like Quebec and in a city like Montreal, the French language loses ground, particularly in Montreal. The situation is probably not as critical in Lévis—Bellechasse, but in Montreal the French language is certainly losing ground: 25% of Montrealers work in English.

This amendment is not purely symbolic. It states, to a certain extent, the intent of the legislator. In this regard, the Barreau du Québec said this:

Jurisprudence, also, seems to consistently demonstrate that the preamble is always important, though the circumstances in a matter, such as the clarity of the provision, justifies setting aside any indications of intent that may be found in the preamble.

It then becomes an insurance policy provided that the body of the act is also amended. The Official Languages Act essentially applies to the Government of Canada and its institutions, and as mentioned earlier, under section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is impossible to amend any provisions dealing with institutionalized bilingualism within the federal government without amending the Constitution.

However, two parts of the act can be amended, namely part VII, which deals with the advancement of English and French in Canadian society, and part X, which deals in part with the mandate of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

The amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois will require a commitment by the federal government not to interfere with the objectives of the Charter of the French Language. It is important to remind members that the recognition of the Charter of the French Language does not in any way diminish the rights and privileges of the anglophone minority in Quebec under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These amendments are strictly limited to the power of the federal government to interfere with language policy in Quebec.

The specific mention of a provincial legislation in a federal statute is allowed, and it is even common. This is called a statutory reference. It means that the government recognizes the provisions made by another Canadian legislature. For example, the Canada Labour Code includes a statutory reference about minimum wage that says the provinces are to set the hourly minimum wage. This is section 178 of the Canada Labour Code. The bill contains an amendment dealing with that.

Almost 10% of the labour force in Quebec is under the Canada Labour Code. These workers are under federal jurisdiction and are employed by companies that do not comply with Bill 101. A federal piece of legislation is needed in order to have them comply. In this regard, two or three industries are usually mentioned, but I will give a more extensive listing.

The Canada Labour Code applies to: works or undertakings connecting a province with another province or country, such as railways, bus operations, trucking, pipelines, ferries, tunnels, bridges, canals, telephone and cable systems; all extra-provincial shipping and services connected with such shipping, such as longshoring; air transport, aircraft and airports; radio and television broadcasting—all our radio and television stations in Quebec; banks; defined operations of specific works that have been declared by Parliament to be for the general advantage of Canada or of two or more provinces, such as flour, feed and seed cleaning mills, feed warehouses, grain elevators and uranium mining and processing; and Federal Crown corporations where they are engaged in works or undertakings that fall within section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, or where they are an agency of the Crown, for example the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority.

Here are examples of the number of employees in some of the enterprises coming under the Canada Labour Code. Bell Canada, which is under federal jurisdiction, had 17,241 employees in 2006. In the financial sector, the Royal Bank has 7,600 and the National Bank of Canada has 10,299. In the interprovincial transportation sector, Air Canada has 7,657.

It is estimated that there are approximately 200,000 Quebeckers working in an environment that does not comply with Bill 101 in Quebec, that is a little less than 10% of Quebec workers. The amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois adds to Part 1 of the Canada Labour Code a provision that stipulates that “any federal work, undertaking or business carrying on activities in Quebec is subject to the requirements of the Charter of the French Language”. That provision responds to the demand made in the Larose report of 2001. I refer to Gérald Larose, then and still president of the Conseil de la souveraineté.

I can give a very good example of this Conservative government's lack of respect for the Quebec nation. It occurred last year right after the recognition of the Quebec nation. That motion was, I repeat, adopted in this House in November 2006. Within a week or two of that date, the Minister of Labour tabled Bill C-55 in this House.

This bill, which was a reworking of the bankruptcy legislation, contained a clause that ran counter to the Quebec Civil Code and made certain RRSPs seizable. What this Conservative government wanted was to see bankrupt small investors lose the money they had put aside over the years to certain major finance companies I shall not name here. Major credit card companies. That is what this government wanted to do, which runs counter to one of the things that differentiates the Quebec nation, its civil code. This runs counter to the values of the Quebec nation. This is not the approach we take to working people. We respect what they have put aside over the years.

Finally, after six months, the Bloc Québécois managed to get that legislation amended. Not a single Conservative member of this House spoke up for the investors of Quebec.

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have rarely heard so much foolishness in such a short time. It is unbelievable.

The last example was about a bill for the protection of employees. We were not talking about credit cards or banks, but about protecting the earnings of employees who had not been paid by the owner of a company. To compare that to big banks smacks of demagoguery.

Once again, it is a false debate. That will be the subject of my question. The Bloc waited 17 years before raising this topic, and it is doing so at a time when there is a threat of a world-wide recession and difficulties at many levels. Today, the priority for the Bloc Québécois is the application of Bill 101 to the Canada Labour Code. Frankly, nobody raised that topic with me during the last two weeks while I was in my riding, and I spoke with more than 2,000 people.

Can my colleague tell me why she waited 17 years to raise this subject in the House?

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, the member should do his homework. It is not surprising that he has not defended Quebec workers because he does not know his history.

The objective of Bill C-55 was to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Of course, it included a section that created a program to protect the earnings of workers whose employer had declared bankruptcy. That was a part of Bill C-55. I invite all those who are listening to us now to look for the bill on the Internet. It is a bill that dates from 2006 or 2007. In fact, the largest part of this bill deals with an overhaul of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

I will return to this example, because it is an excellent one. It is a bit complicated to explain and that is why it never made the headlines. Bill C-55 included a section that stated that from now on some RRSPs could be seized by big finance companies. Not only has this Conservative government done nothing to protect the savings of workers, but, worse, it has done nothing to protect the Quebec Civil Code. How can one believe that this Conservative government is open to the Quebec nation? It is not. It took the Bloc Québécois six months to get it to listen to reason. I say that it is a good example, but it is an excellent example. There is no need to prove the usefulness of the Bloc, but from time to time we must remind everyone just how useful the Bloc is. In the end, the Bloc Québécois used a unanimous motion from the Quebec National Assembly to make this government listen to reason. The government finally gave in and accepted the amendment from the Bloc.

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform you that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Louis-Hébert, who does tremendous work on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

It is my pleasure to rise on this opposition day to show how important it is to my Conservative colleagues, those from Quebec and from all over the country, to support and promote the French language and linguistic duality all across Canada.

We appreciate that this is a partisan debate and that our colleagues from the Bloc are looking for new causes to fight for in order to justify their presence in Ottawa. However, I intend to show that they should try to find another issue today.

Linguistic duality is one of the core values of Canadians. I listened to my colleagues from the Bloc. They are proud Quebeckers. Sometimes, they have to travel out of the country. I ask them, who defends linguistic duality? Who makes sure that we have French schools all over the country? Who finances these schools? Who supports them? The federal government does, of course, along with the other provinces, who have the legal responsibility to do so.

In this regard, I would like to recall that even before there were Conservative members from Quebec, all Conservative members supported strengthening the Official Languages Act, which is an important piece of legislation here in the country and I congratulate them for this. We were not there but they kept watch and made it possible for Canada’s linguistic legislative framework to be strengthened. So, we see that the Conservative tradition of promoting linguistic duality is not something new. We are always keen to promote linguistic duality throughout the country.

The situation is special in Quebec. It is known that Quebec is the cradle of French civilization in North America. It is certainly the place where the first chapters of Canadian history were played out thanks to Europe’s influence here, on North American soil, although naturally the aboriginals were there well before us. So, that is the cornerstone of promoting French today.

It is interesting because not only the Canadian government, but also the government currently in place in Quebec, have understood the promotion and leadership roles that Quebec must play within the Canadian federation in promoting French throughout the country. We are happy to work with them in this regard and we salute their initiatives.

So, we work in a complementary manner to promote French throughout the country, including in Quebec, and internationally. The presence of the French language and culture is asset, an economic asset, a gauge of our country’s unique character which defines us in comparison to the Americans, for example. This of course, requires strong support and willingness from various levels of government.

Moreover, a few months ago in Halifax, the individual who was at that time Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for La Francophonie and Official Languages met with her provincial counterparts. They discussed various topics such as services in French and exchanges of professional resources between provinces and territories for the purpose of helping to revitalize living environments and improving the quality of resources and services for citizens. We know, with regard to labour mobility, how important it is to ensure that French is promoted, not only in Quebec, but everywhere in the country and that is what is being done.

In addition, our minister and the other ministers paid special attention to youth and young francophones. We want them to develop a sense of pride in their francophone and Acadian identity. Two of my nephews were born and have grown up in Ontario, where they go to school in French. They are very proud to be Ontarians, and they are equally proud of their francophone heritage, which does them credit.

To promote this pride among our francophone youth, I went to Saint-Boniface just over a month ago to announce Government of Canada support for two initiatives. The first targeted Franco-Manitoban youth. It was a few days before Louis Riel Day. Franco-Manitoban identity is a definite asset to Manitoba and enriches the province's culture.

I announced two initiatives. The first will help Franco-Manitoban youth organize French-language sporting events and take part in the Jeux de la francophonie canadienne. We will see the results of this initiative in the coming weeks and months, as young French Canadians perform in sporting events.

There are other Government of Canada initiatives that support francophone communities. I am thinking in particular of Quebec's policy on Canadian Francophonie, which is a good example of how our actions complement one another from sea to sea. We encourage our Bloc Québécois colleagues to support these initiatives by the Government of Quebec. Quebec has created a tool for sharing its expertise in various fields with the other governments to help them provide French-language services, confirming Quebec's importance and leadership role in la Francophonie and especially Canadian Francophonie.

This summer, the eyes of the international francophone community will be on Quebec City, where the Francophone Summit will be held in conjunction with the festivities marking Quebec City's 400th anniversary. All my colleagues from the area and I cannot wait to welcome representatives of the world's francophone nations and share our pride in our culture and language.

Just this morning we were working on cooperation agreements between the federal government and the agencies representing linguistic communities. This applies to the culture, communications, education, economic development and health sectors. These sectors are central to the Government of Canada's priority measures and the communities are telling us that they appreciate the improvements our government has made, namely in terms of multi-year funding.

These are small agencies with few people and spending a third of their time filling out forms is a waste of their time. The Department of Canadian Heritage, led by our excellent minister, suggested that these agencies make multi-year applications and fill out just one form. Their funding would thereby be assured for a number of years. That suggestion has been very well received by these groups.

Promoting the French language across Canada requires strong ties between francophones from Quebec and francophones from the rest of the country. In that regard, we truly have a great partner in the Government of Quebec.

Demographics, the aging population and the need for labour are major challenges. This evening, the Bloc Québécois will have the opportunity to promote labour mobility, namely the mobility of francophones from around the world who want to come and work here. There are francophones who want to come and work in Lévis' hospitals. Those specialists are needed.

Because of the red tape and the long waiting lists we have inherited from the previous government, we are currently unable to welcome these people who want to live here and prosper. That is why I am anxious to support the bill on immigration and francophone immigration.

In Quebec, as elsewhere in Canada, immigration plays a critical role. This evening we could take concrete action instead of passing a motion that seems rather futile to me. It should be noted that a growing number of immigrants in the province are choosing to live in French. I have a Statistics Canada analysis that I invite my Bloc Québécois colleagues to read. In fact, the Standing Committee on Official Languages is going to hear from witnesses from Statistics Canada. They are welcome.

According to Mr. Jean-Pierre Corbeil, the increasing popularity of French in plants, offices and businesses is due to an increasing stream of working immigrants coming from France, Haiti, Morocco and Tunisia

This evening, my colleagues from the Bloc can take concrete action to increase the use of French at work in Quebec and across the country by supporting the immigration bill. Our government is taking concrete action and we are very proud to do so.

I would have a lot more to say and many more examples to give to show how proud our government is to support and promote linguistic duality across the country. We are particularly proud of our involvement in Quebec City's 400th anniversary celebrations. In fact, our Prime Minister has reminded us that at its beginnings Canada was French.

We invite Canadians from all over the country to Quebec City this summer to celebrate its 400th anniversary and to appreciate this linguistic diversity.

I will gladly answer any questions my colleagues may have. I thank you for your attention, Mr. Speaker.

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I carefully listened to my colleague. There is one thing he did not understand. What he said is all well and good, except that it does not apply. My colleague should understand one thing in life: Lévis-Bellechasse is Lévis-Bellechasse, but there is also the rest of Quebec. He should also understand another thing, and that is what we are seeking through the motion introduced this morning. I could reread a passage from it for him.

With respect to language of work, we do not mean that it is only French in Quebec and that we do not care about the rest. He did not understand that? That is not what we are asking. That is not what is in the motion. It is true that it may have been mistranslated from English into French.

Nevertheless, here is what I have to tell him: Bell Canada has 17,241 employees; TELUS has 4,400; Rogers Communications has 3,299; CanWest Global has 519 employees; CTV Global Media, 413; Cogeco, 1,355; Astral Media, 1,400 employees; the Royal Bank, 7,600; Scotiabank, 1,500; the Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2,323; the CIBC, 3,153; the Bank of Montreal, 5,000 employees; the National Bank of Canada, 10,299; ACE Aviation Holdings, 7,657; and Canadian Pacific, 1,250 employees. Could I continue like this for three days?

Does he not think that these people have the right to work in French in Quebec?

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for his question. My answer is: absolutely.

He has given us some figures. There are a lot of employees. However, I have only one figure to give him that embraces all those statistics that he has just given us. It is another statistic: nearly 95% of Quebeckers most often or regularly use French at work. That figure was up from 2001, according to the last 2006 survey.

Consequently, in the vast majority of cases, workers in Quebec use French. They use other languages, of course, because Quebec is a nation—if I may borrow that expression—which is open to interprovincial trade, to North American trade and to international trade. And that takes place in all languages.

Today, we should instead urge our businesses to speak a number of languages—Spanish, Russian, Chinese. That is what should be done. Linguistic diversity should be expanded.

I remind him that nearly 74% of people in the city of Montreal speak French. It can readily be seen that French is used in the labour market. This evening, he has a chance to make it so that French is used even more, by encouraging francophone workers to immigrate. Therefore I urge him to support the bill this evening.

Opposition Motion—Compliance with the Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

We have time for one more quick question.

The hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.